>Rakesh:
>>It may well indeed be boring to note that Kerrey may well be lying
>>as his account has been called into question on both sides of the
>>Pacific, but it's the simple boring fact--along with the fact that
>>Hitchens ignored it--that you too simply don't recognize in this
>>lengthy, albeit amusing, reply.
>
>I've found this thread very amusing, also. And I have to say your
>high standards are very impressive, but I guess we should have
>high standards when it comes to our so-called lefty mini-celebrities.
No the standards are not high. Somehow forgetting that Kerrey's account was contested, Hitchens made comments which were interpreted as a defense of Kerrey for acting reasonably, if not honorably, in inhumane conditions. It is not holding a leftist journalist to high standard to ask that he not assume an American politican is not lying about an American atrocity even if that American politician is his boss.
>Same with our political leaders. You seem to be finding Kerrey
>guilty until proven innocent.
No, I am finding Hitchens guilty of assuming that Kerrey was innocent despite the counter-evidence.
>The fact of the matter is that the witness
>who came forward is said to have a beef against Kerrey.
Of course he has a beef against him; his commander has forced him to live with the nightmare of having killed civilians for over 30 years.
> However,
>given what went on in Vietnam 30 years ago, I wouldn't be surprised
>if it were true.
Nor should you be surprised if Kerrey is lying.
>
>New York Times Op-Ed
>April 30, 2001
>Syndrome Returns
>by William Safire
>
>WASHINGTON
>Medal of Honor winner and former Senator Bob Kerrey, joined by five members
>of the Navy Seal team sent into a free-fire zone in South Vietnam for the
>purpose of killing Vietcong Communist leaders, asserts that they were
>returning enemy fire on that dark night 32 years ago. To their lifelong
>dismay, their blazing response killed civilians of all ages.
Were or were not civilians lined up and shot? This was a blazing response? Safire needs to use language more carefully.
>
>One member of the team disagrees, claiming that Kerrey ordered deliberate
>murder.
It's always remarkable when ranks are broken.
>That lone account is supported by the wife of a Vietcong fighter,
>speaking with the approval of Vietnamese officials, whose story has already
>changed from what she said she "saw" to what she now tells reporters she
>"heard."
Note that Safire finds no real contradictions or problems in her accounts.
>
>In our system of justice, the burden of proof is on the accuser and a
>presumption of innocence belongs to the accused. No hard evidence is offered
>to support this grave allegation.
Eye witness accounts are not evidence?
> That is why the denial by the anguished
>Kerrey and his fellow veterans deserves respect. They have long been
>burdened by guilt at the mistaken wartime killings, but they are not
>murderers.
Even Kerrey admits that it is he who may not be remembering the massacre accurately.
>
>This story is another manifestation of the self-flagellation that led to the
>Vietnam Syndrome — that revulsion at the use of military power that
>afflicted our national psyche for decades after our defeat.
No, I do not enjoy reading this crap, Peter K.
>
>It is the pacifist position that holds Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon
>morally culpable to have helped the South Vietnamese defend their nation
>from Communist invaders from the north.
Nor lies like this.
> The American elites that ducked the
>draft were right to refuse to get involved in somebody else's civil war,
>goes this voice.
This would include Shrub.
>Many of those too poor or patriotic to arrange deferments
>to avoid service were shunned as killers on their return.
This may have been terrible, yet the war may have made some killers who then had to be shunned.
>
>The national affliction called the Vietnam Syndrome carried this message:
>because war means killing, and because killing brutalizes and dehumanizes
>those charged with doing it, we should never again become involved in such a
>messy endeavor. Honoring commitments to allies? An excuse for imperialism.
>Containing the spread of Communist tyranny? One day the democratic and
>Communist systems would peacefully converge, we were assured; therefore,
>never hesitate to accommodate.
As Justin would say, Safire does not have truth in him. And what exactly did you find edifying about this?
Rakesh